What are your thoughts on Glen Gulutzan's system?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

My thoughts are that people's thoughts on Glen Gulutzan's system are much more highly correlated with our place in the standings than with an understanding of actual hockey coaching systems.

This. 100x this.

When asked what system Gulutzen used you'd get some ultra detailed responses by some but did anyone even give a passing notice that the coach simplified his system last month? Could anyone even now knowing that he did tell you the difference between then and now? The answer seems to be a eye opening no. Until Gulutzen informed us what he did no one could point out the difference I'd bet.

Don't mean to come across as condescending either by the way because this former goalie certainly couldn't go into detail about most hockey systems coaches deploy because the basic stuff. Usually I was told to stop the puck, and even that order wasn't usually listened to.

[Heavy Jack]

I always wondered this as a fan and a guy who has never been in the presence of a hockey team/coaching system. As a fan I can tell you that to me there seems to be more structure to the Flames vs. Hartley - I noticed way more run and gun type play under Bob, way more north south type play, which I think exposed the D much of the time;especially with the D jumping often under bob. I also think this is why we played with a ton of swagger under bob, I'd imagine it's a freeing way to play from a players perspective. Under Gulutzan, initially like I said I saw more of a structured approach, positioning is key, less cheating - backlund and frolik thrived almost instantly - but the rest seemed almost lost or confused at times early on.

As for the change in Gulutzan system through the year I haven't noticed anything different, if u asked me what I thought before knowing they 'simplified' the system I would have just said that I guess the players are getting it now.

Back to the initial part of this post.. for the hockey players on CP .. has there been a noticeable change past just certain visual assumptions made by me and other hockey fans year over year, coach to coach? Are you able to see the system change that happened apparently a month or so ago?

The styles between the two coaches are for sure different to me, noticeably so but past the basic things I can't really define what's different - hoping someone can detail it better is all.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

This. 100x this.

When asked what system Gulutzen used you'd get some ultra detailed responses by some but did anyone even give a passing notice that the coach simplified his system last month? Could anyone even now knowing that he did tell you the difference between then and now? The answer seems to be a eye opening no. Until Gulutzen informed us what he did no one could point out the difference I'd bet.

Don't mean to come across as condescending either by the way because this former goalie certainly couldn't go into detail about most hockey systems coaches deploy because the basic stuff. Usually I was told to stop the puck, and even that order wasn't usually listened to.

You were a goalie?

Why didn't you say so earlier?

It explains a lot!

Burke said the team simplified the system, last month.

GG said in his interview that they have not modified or simplified the system.

He also said it was a tough adjustment for the players as they had to do a 180 , intimating that his system was the diametric opposite to Hartley's.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

This. 100x this.

When asked what system Gulutzen used you'd get some ultra detailed responses by some but did anyone even give a passing notice that the coach simplified his system last month? Could anyone even now knowing that he did tell you the difference between then and now? The answer seems to be a eye opening no. Until Gulutzen informed us what he did no one could point out the difference I'd bet.

Don't mean to come across as condescending either by the way because this former goalie certainly couldn't go into detail about most hockey systems coaches deploy because the basic stuff. Usually I was told to stop the puck, and even that order wasn't usually listened to.

Gulutzan actually has some solid points in his coaching seminar videos. He even uses Hartley's system as an example of quick transition hockey.

A big part of system play means you rely on certain player combinations to work. Removing Wideman from the lineup has been huge really. It can't be understated.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

This. 100x this.

When asked what system Gulutzen used you'd get some ultra detailed responses by some but did anyone even give a passing notice that the coach simplified his system last month? Could anyone even now knowing that he did tell you the difference between then and now? The answer seems to be a eye opening no. Until Gulutzen informed us what he did no one could point out the difference I'd bet.

Don't mean to come across as condescending either by the way because this former goalie certainly couldn't go into detail about most hockey systems coaches deploy because the basic stuff. Usually I was told to stop the puck, and even that order wasn't usually listened to.

I've never played much hockey (I did one year in a rec league in university), so I clearly have no experience or first hand knowledge. However, two things that have stood out to me are:

1. On defence Hartley seemed to preference the team to collapse toward the net and block shots, hoping the puck would never make it to the goalie to save in the first place. Gulutzan on the other hand, seems to want to keep the other team to the perimeter, forcing them to take lower quality shots and letting the goalie stop the puck.

2. On offense, Hartley really loved the stretch pass. He wanted us to score off the rush a lot. Conversely, Gulutzan likes to use a lot of shorter passes to get the puck into the neutral zone and then to carry the puck in. He seems to like quick passes even within the zone to open up quality scoring chances.

I've also heard that Gulutzan wants the team to play much more of a puck possession game than Hartley did.

These are my only observations, and I'm completely open to be entirely wrong from a coaching perspective.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Gulutzan actually has some solid points in his coaching seminar videos. He even uses Hartley's system as an example of quick transition hockey.

A big part of system play means you rely on certain player combinations to work. Removing Wideman from the lineup has been huge really. It can't be understated.

Player and bench management have little to nothing to do with systematic play.

[RockOnRoberts]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

I've never played much hockey (I did one year in a rec league in university), so I clearly have no experience or first hand knowledge. However, two things that have stood out to me are:

1. On defence Hartley seemed to preference the team to collapse toward the net and block shots, hoping the puck would never make it to the goalie to save in the first place. Gulutzan on the other hand, seems to want to keep the other team to the perimeter, forcing them to take lower quality shots and letting the goalie stop the puck.
.

This right here is very similar to Sutter style hockey. It's not about quanitity of shots, but quality. Combined with having defense responsible for clearing the rebound gives the goalie more freedom and peace of mind to make the athletic/acrobatic saves. Gulutzan has also mentioned that he learned a lot from Sutter so it would make sense for him to adopt a piece of his strategy.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by RockOnRoberts

This right here is very similar to Sutter style hockey. It's not about quanitity of shots, but quality. Combined with having defense responsible for clearing the rebound gives the goalie more freedom and peace of mind to make the athletic/acrobatic saves. Gulutzan has also mentioned that he learned a lot from Sutter so it would make sense for him to adopt a piece of his strategy.

Agree with the premise that defensive zone coverage may have been influenced by Sutter.

Offensively, seems to be more Babcock influenced. Small triangulation and close support in the dzone, enabling the Flames to possess the puck thru NZ and outnumber the opposition at their blue line. Numbers are key at both bluelines.

Outnumber the opposition at both bluelines consistently during a game, you win consistently.

In the offensive zone, large triangulation with width and depth along with strong puck protection, a la puck possession ....and high quality first scoring chances with net presence and second chances, which are crucial ,with the quality and ability of NHL goalies.

I like Gulutzan's team tactics and strategy a lot.

[RockOnRoberts]

Originally Posted by timbit

Agree with the premise that defensive zone coverage may have been influenced by Sutter.

Offensively, seems to be more Babcock influenced. Small triangulation and close support in the dzone, enabling the Flames to possess the puck thru NZ and outnumber the opposition at their blue line. Numbers are key at both bluelines.

Outnumber the opposition at both bluelines consistently during a game, you win consistently.

In the offensive zone, large triangulation with width and depth along with strong puck protection, a la puck possession ....and high quality first scoring chances with net presence and second chances, which are crucial ,with the quality and ability of NHL goalies.

I like Gulutzan's team tactics and strategy a lot.

Agreed. I believe Treliving referred to him as a "student of the game" back when he was hired and what a description that was. He's shown to be very willing to adapt and he molds his strategies after proven techniques that he has picked up and tweaked along the way. This is turning out to be a good hire.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

I've never played much hockey (I did one year in a rec league in university), so I clearly have no experience or first hand knowledge. However, two things that have stood out to me are:

1. On defence Hartley seemed to preference the team to collapse toward the net and block shots, hoping the puck would never make it to the goalie to save in the first place. Gulutzan on the other hand, seems to want to keep the other team to the perimeter, forcing them to take lower quality shots and letting the goalie stop the puck.

2. On offense, Hartley really loved the stretch pass. He wanted us to score off the rush a lot. Conversely, Gulutzan likes to use a lot of shorter passes to get the puck into the neutral zone and then to carry the puck in. He seems to like quick passes even within the zone to open up quality scoring chances.

I've also heard that Gulutzan wants the team to play much more of a puck possession game than Hartley did.

These are my only observations, and I'm completely open to be entirely wrong from a coaching perspective.

I am still trying to really figure out Gulutzan's system, but I would argue that the points for Hartley's system isn't quite right (not that you are totally wrong either).

On defence, Hartley did NOT want high quality shot attempts being made. His defence was more passive - they would always allow entry (except on the PK - there they would close the gap and try and intercept the pass across right at the blue line). Once the other team set up in the zone, the puck carrier was challenged and the challenge was to poke the puck away, or if a shot attempt was made, then to block it. The defencemen and forwards would position themselves with sticks in the lanes (Hartley was very adamant about this point) and maintain proper positioning so the Flames would NOT give up high-quality shots from danger areas. Everything was still kept to the perimeter. It was a LOT of getting in the lanes and blocking shots.

The big difference between the two systems defensively (that I can see anyways) is that Gulutzan is getting the defence to pressure the puck carrier more. Hartley would challenge them, but this defence actively hunts them down in the zone more. Hartley would rely on the sticks and bodies in passing lanes to block shots and then quickly turn that into a transition (sometimes a stretch pass, sometimes a clean break by a forward or defencemen and everyone has to skate hard in support, with a trailer every time).

Gulutzan instead seems to 'chase' the opposing players more in the zone, forcing them to make quicker decisions. They still utilize shot blocking - they just aren't as reliant on it. I find that the defence still collapses hard around the net - and this is where they really utilize the shot block. You are seeing a lot of players just lay down and attempt to stop passes across and shots when the opposing team has the puck in a high danger area. It is a bit different than Hartley. I didn't see that very often.

You are definitely right with the shorter touch-passes, and Gulutzan still utilizes the stretch pass and the deflected dump and chase - you have to in order to keep the other team guessing. Brent Sutter forced everything down the walls and into the corners for a cycle, and teams quickly learned to cover the walls, for instance, neutralizing the offence quickly. Hartley still used the cycle, but not as often as Gulutzan. When you look at the makeup of the team year to year, you will notice that this year's Flames are bigger - Ferland is a regular now, Brouwer, Chiasson (for his warts, he has size), Tkachuk (who is excellent on the cycle), Hathaway when he was up, and of course the existing young players getting larger and stronger naturally. This all helps competing against other teams along the boards.

The misconception I find is that Hartley employed a 'run and gun' system where defence was only a secondary consideration. While true that the defence was activated on offence and would often join rushes (or even lead rushes more regularly), the system would force a forward to come back and cover. Again, looking at the team during most of his tenure, that was a pretty good system that fit the team, as offensive forwards were sparse, but the Flames had some talented puck-moving offensive defencemen. Brodie started excelling at BOTH ends of the ice under Hartley, not Sutter, for instance. Backlund as well (though he was well on his way in Brent's last year, without question).

Offensively, Gulutzan is favoring a more traditional 'forward' attack where the center and two wingers are driving the offence. Hartley preferred more pressure from the defence. I would say that the system (as I see it) that Gulutzan employs is fitting the Flames, but I also see the system that Hartley used as fitting the Flames for how they were constituted as well at the time.

What I do think is that BOTH systems broke down readily when the team suffered from shaky goaltending. The majority of last year under Hartley by Hiller and Ramo (though the Flames started to look good and seemed to be getting back on track when Ramo was recalled, but then took a sudden nosedive when Ramo got injured). A rattled team will make a tonne more unforced errors as they try to compensate. We saw the exact same thing happen early on when Elliott was letting in too many ugly goals - a tonne of breakdowns happened, though I do think it is arguable how much of that was breakdowns, and how much of that was 'learning the system' (so players had to think too much instead of react). I don't look at it as "Working Hartley's tendencies out".

What exactly is Gulutzan's system right now? I don't exactly know - and I really hate to criticize what I do see (or don't see) as it seems to be working, but I do see on this squad some good 200 foot forwards and some really good offensive and mobile defencemen. I would like to see them add a bit of pressure in the offensive zone by the D at times - maybe not as much as Hartley employed (and there are better forwards throughout the lineup that can carry the offence) but I think it would help produce more high quality chances. Then again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Hamilton is about to break his career high for points.
Giordano has taken a substantial hit on his point production.
Brodie has taken a hit.
Engelland has already exactly equaled his point production from last season (exact goals and assists, though in slightly less games played (3) as he was hurt last season).

I didn't factor other defencemen on the team for obvious reasons. Brodie can be somewhat excused for switching sides and his off-ice worries. Giordano is the real question mark. Gulutzan's system has reduced Giordano's point production, but it seems to be paying off well for Hamilton (or we are seeing Hamilton just progress). The system definitely seems less dependent on the defencemen this year, so it is curious to see only one player (who is playing exceptionally well, btw) take a hit on points (if you excuse Brodie's reasons). I would have thought the Flames would have seen an across the board reduction in points by defencemen.

Just my observations anyways - which aren't at all that insightful.

I am just getting much more confident that they system that I am seeing seems to be a fit when you look at the roster - though one could certainly argue that with the size and skill found on the team, that a number of systems could work.

I liked Hartley's counter-attack system as the team was still rather undersized, shallow but relatively quick with a talented backend.

I hated Sutter's 'everything along the boards, nothing up the middle' system as the team was old and small, and would often get manhandled along the boards.

What I disagree with in many posters saying was that Hartley's system was not defensively responsible. Hartley pushed this team hard to be fit so that they could skate hard on the attack, but also skate back hard to cover on defence and try to get into position quickly to fill the lanes. However, no system looks good when a goalie is having trouble stopping pucks that they should be stopping.

There seems to be a larger repertoire of options under Gulutzan than Hartley, that's for sure, but I also think this team has a larger repertoire of ability now with their makeup.

I know I will be really interested in following Hartley's next coaching gig to see how his team is composed, and what system he utilizes.

I will go so far as to say that Darryl Sutter, Hartley and (so far) Gulutzan have all employed systems that seem to fit the makeup of the team, and they all experienced some form of success. Brent Sutter did not and that team flopped. Keenan... just let them do their thing - but that was a talented and deep squad - so I guess it is arbitrary what success was. I think they flopped with their lack of playoff success. Hopefully this team reaches new heights under Gulutzan's system that seems well tailored for the Flames.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by timbit

Player and bench management have little to nothing to do with systematic play.

Different sport, but Patriots are a great example. Plug player A into the system, and it functions same as it did with player B.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I am still trying to really figure out Gulutzan's system, but I would argue that the points for Hartley's system isn't quite right (not that you are totally wrong either).

On defence, Hartley did NOT want high quality shot attempts being made. His defence was more passive - they would always allow entry (except on the PK - there they would close the gap and try and intercept the pass across right at the blue line). Once the other team set up in the zone, the puck carrier was challenged and the challenge was to poke the puck away, or if a shot attempt was made, then to block it. The defencemen and forwards would position themselves with sticks in the lanes (Hartley was very adamant about this point) and maintain proper positioning so the Flames would NOT give up high-quality shots from danger areas. Everything was still kept to the perimeter. It was a LOT of getting in the lanes and blocking shots.

The big difference between the two systems defensively (that I can see anyways) is that Gulutzan is getting the defence to pressure the puck carrier more. Hartley would challenge them, but this defence actively hunts them down in the zone more. Hartley would rely on the sticks and bodies in passing lanes to block shots and then quickly turn that into a transition (sometimes a stretch pass, sometimes a clean break by a forward or defencemen and everyone has to skate hard in support, with a trailer every time).

Gulutzan instead seems to 'chase' the opposing players more in the zone, forcing them to make quicker decisions. They still utilize shot blocking - they just aren't as reliant on it. I find that the defence still collapses hard around the net - and this is where they really utilize the shot block. You are seeing a lot of players just lay down and attempt to stop passes across and shots when the opposing team has the puck in a high danger area. It is a bit different than Hartley. I didn't see that very often.

You are definitely right with the shorter touch-passes, and Gulutzan still utilizes the stretch pass and the deflected dump and chase - you have to in order to keep the other team guessing. Brent Sutter forced everything down the walls and into the corners for a cycle, and teams quickly learned to cover the walls, for instance, neutralizing the offence quickly. Hartley still used the cycle, but not as often as Gulutzan. When you look at the makeup of the team year to year, you will notice that this year's Flames are bigger - Ferland is a regular now, Brouwer, Chiasson (for his warts, he has size), Tkachuk (who is excellent on the cycle), Hathaway when he was up, and of course the existing young players getting larger and stronger naturally. This all helps competing against other teams along the boards.

The misconception I find is that Hartley employed a 'run and gun' system where defence was only a secondary consideration. While true that the defence was activated on offence and would often join rushes (or even lead rushes more regularly), the system would force a forward to come back and cover. Again, looking at the team during most of his tenure, that was a pretty good system that fit the team, as offensive forwards were sparse, but the Flames had some talented puck-moving offensive defencemen. Brodie started excelling at BOTH ends of the ice under Hartley, not Sutter, for instance. Backlund as well (though he was well on his way in Brent's last year, without question).

Offensively, Gulutzan is favoring a more traditional 'forward' attack where the center and two wingers are driving the offence. Hartley preferred more pressure from the defence. I would say that the system (as I see it) that Gulutzan employs is fitting the Flames, but I also see the system that Hartley used as fitting the Flames for how they were constituted as well at the time.

What I do think is that BOTH systems broke down readily when the team suffered from shaky goaltending. The majority of last year under Hartley by Hiller and Ramo (though the Flames started to look good and seemed to be getting back on track when Ramo was recalled, but then took a sudden nosedive when Ramo got injured). A rattled team will make a tonne more unforced errors as they try to compensate. We saw the exact same thing happen early on when Elliott was letting in too many ugly goals - a tonne of breakdowns happened, though I do think it is arguable how much of that was breakdowns, and how much of that was 'learning the system' (so players had to think too much instead of react). I don't look at it as "Working Hartley's tendencies out".

What exactly is Gulutzan's system right now? I don't exactly know - and I really hate to criticize what I do see (or don't see) as it seems to be working, but I do see on this squad some good 200 foot forwards and some really good offensive and mobile defencemen. I would like to see them add a bit of pressure in the offensive zone by the D at times - maybe not as much as Hartley employed (and there are better forwards throughout the lineup that can carry the offence) but I think it would help produce more high quality chances. Then again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Hamilton is about to break his career high for points.
Giordano has taken a substantial hit on his point production.
Brodie has taken a hit.
Engelland has already exactly equaled his point production from last season (exact goals and assists, though in slightly less games played (3) as he was hurt last season).

I didn't factor other defencemen on the team for obvious reasons. Brodie can be somewhat excused for switching sides and his off-ice worries. Giordano is the real question mark. Gulutzan's system has reduced Giordano's point production, but it seems to be paying off well for Hamilton (or we are seeing Hamilton just progress). The system definitely seems less dependent on the defencemen this year, so it is curious to see only one player (who is playing exceptionally well, btw) take a hit on points (if you excuse Brodie's reasons). I would have thought the Flames would have seen an across the board reduction in points by defencemen.

Just my observations anyways - which aren't at all that insightful.

I am just getting much more confident that they system that I am seeing seems to be a fit when you look at the roster - though one could certainly argue that with the size and skill found on the team, that a number of systems could work.

I liked Hartley's counter-attack system as the team was still rather undersized, shallow but relatively quick with a talented backend.

I hated Sutter's 'everything along the boards, nothing up the middle' system as the team was old and small, and would often get manhandled along the boards.

What I disagree with in many posters saying was that Hartley's system was not defensively responsible. Hartley pushed this team hard to be fit so that they could skate hard on the attack, but also skate back hard to cover on defence and try to get into position quickly to fill the lanes. However, no system looks good when a goalie is having trouble stopping pucks that they should be stopping.

There seems to be a larger repertoire of options under Gulutzan than Hartley, that's for sure, but I also think this team has a larger repertoire of ability now with their makeup.

I know I will be really interested in following Hartley's next coaching gig to see how his team is composed, and what system he utilizes.

I will go so far as to say that Darryl Sutter, Hartley and (so far) Gulutzan have all employed systems that seem to fit the makeup of the team, and they all experienced some form of success. Brent Sutter did not and that team flopped. Keenan... just let them do their thing - but that was a talented and deep squad - so I guess it is arbitrary what success was. I think they flopped with their lack of playoff success. Hopefully this team reaches new heights under Gulutzan's system that seems well tailored for the Flames.

^ this the opposite of systems play.
Babcock implements basically the same system with the Leafs as with team Canada.
One group is simply capable of executing it far better than the other.
The system is the system.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

This post from late November makes me smile.

Clearly some people have the vision to see things work out long term. This was about the time the Flames were starting to put it together, but there were still a lot of people talking about how bad Gulutzan was.

Hell I think I was called a company man and a Treliving parrot at the time.

But it's not over, there's a % just waiting for the next bump in the road.

[Draug]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Hell I think I was called a company man and a Treliving parrot at the time.

But it's not over, there's a % just waiting for the next bump in the road.

Sweet vindication, no doubt.

Back then, I was pretty vocal that I felt Gulatzan was a poor choice and I was very unhappy with some decisions he was making. The results were even worse.

Is it possible that Gulatzan is learning to be a better head coach? I mean, Bowman or Babcock weren't instantly great coaches were they?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Draug

Sweet vindication, no doubt.

Back then, I was pretty vocal that I felt Gulatzan was a poor choice and I was very unhappy with some decisions he was making. The results were even worse.

Is it possible that Gulatzan is learning to be a better head coach? I mean, Bowman or Babcock weren't instantly great coaches were they?

I wouldn't even call myself right. I just had more faith in Treliving's thoroughness to not hire a complete dud. He may not be the best choice, then or now (seems to be working out), but the guy wasn't going to just hire a guy for the wrong reasons; he's not built that way.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Draug

Sweet vindication, no doubt.

Back then, I was pretty vocal that I felt Gulatzan was a poor choice and I was very unhappy with some decisions he was making. The results were even worse.

Is it possible that Gulatzan is learning to be a better head coach? I mean, Bowman or Babcock weren't instantly great coaches were they?

Which do you think is more likely:

1) The players had a hard time learning and adapting to a new system that was "a complete 180 to", and far more complex than, the old system (keeping in mind that management has actually stated this multiple times), or

2) Gulutzan duped Treliving into hiring him, and, despite many years or training and experience was a brutal coach, but once hired he kept at it, and learned how to be a good coach over the coarse of 5 months?

Has Gulutzan had to make adjustments on the job? Of course. But he's a good coach now because he was a good coach 5 months ago. And making adjustments is part of what good coaches do.

People see what they want to see, and will manipulate the facts to fit their personal narrative, but I think it's pretty obvious which of those scenarios more comfortably fits the evidence.

[Bingo]

^

Not to mention, the mistakes being made weren't from a system, they were from execution.

No coach tells players to ignore there check in front of the net, gamble when you're the last one back, ignore the streaking guy in the other jersey behind you. I know they don't tell goaltenders to try and whiff a few times every first period.

[GranteedEV]

I think Burke's comments about dumbing the system down refer to a couple of stretches last calendar year (The Chicago/St. louis wins and the first handful of games on the "Chad "Carey Price" Johnson" road trip) where the defense basically stopped trying to make a first pass and everything was glass-and-out or dump-and-chase. The simplification might have helped our goalies get on track but sclearly didn't resemble the style of play we saw in the first period of game 2 of the season (our best 20 minute stretch in the first quarter). There were some ugly wins in those "winning" stretches, especially that one time we came out of Columbus with a win. In contrast, the 4 game losing streak in January seemed to be a series of (mostly) well-played games where the other team's goalie kept outplaying ours.

I am just glad Gulutzan has slowly been taking chiasson & co off the top line as that was not a good look on either the coach or management. It took about 55 games too many but Ferland is where he probably should have been all season (or at least where he should have been since he established he isn't snakebit this year) But I will gladly take it because a 22+ goal season out of Ferly would have been a cap nightmare. Burying our two contract year studs Ferland and Bennett on the fourth line or Brouwer line... genius. Like actually brilliant because we can sign both guys cheap and then unleash them next year along with Kulak. It also explains why despite both being two of our seven or so best forwards, neither was playing together.

[smiggy77]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Gulutzan actually has some solid points in his coaching seminar videos. He even uses Hartley's system as an example of quick transition hockey.

A big part of system play means you rely on certain player combinations to work. Removing Wideman from the lineup has been huge really. It can't be understated.

Well, not really player combinations. More like the requirement of the players to buy into the system. The moment a player does not buy into it, the entire system fails, as we've seen this year.

A good example of coaches with strong systems is Hitchcock and or Babcock, who've both had pretty good success over the years.

I feel like you'd require certain player combinations more with Hartley's system of the quick transition, fast moving, get the puck down the ice as quick as possible.

Another reason why removing someone like Wideman, who looked out of place quite often, slow and often making wrong decisions, etc., would be a detriment to the system.

[SOMBRI2]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

That escalated quickly. We've already fired him twice this season, now we're already talking about firing him next season?

I do agree with your first sentence though. That was a big flaw with Hartley -- there was no plan B if plan A wasn't working. At least we have evidence this year that Gulutzan is willing to tweak things over time.

Did anyone ask Burke is GG reads CP for ideas?